People Getting Hit By Trains - Who Is At Fault?

[Darth Wong]

It does also say that one of the girls has cerebral palsy. I've known people with CP before, and it's possible that she literally lurched back onto the previous track, and her friend jumped with her.

[Vendetta]

First, they don't appear to be able to be held liable for hitting or killing people (one engineer has hit and killed 17 people, according to the article), and they probably don't get into trouble with their bosses either. They aren't in much danger in their trains either. I would suspect, too, that there are more serious penalties for late arrivals than there are for killing people.

This comes down to personal liability vs. corporate liability.

If the company has a fixed policy for dealing with trespass on the tracks (which it seems to have, slow down to let them move, but don't stop), and the driver can be shown to have followed that policy, then the company is liable for any damages, because their policy was not sufficient to meet their duty of care to the public. The same can be applied if there is no policy at all, because they have a duty of care to ensure that the people they employ can act safely in such situations.

If the driver can be shown not to have followed company policy and caused an accident that the policy would have prevented, then he could be individually liable.

(The company I work for has strict policies regarding what we can and cannot do with customer data for just this reason, so that an individual cannot be held personally liable for loss or damage to a customer's business critical data).

[Darth Wong]

If the driver can be shown not to have followed company policy and caused an accident that the policy would have prevented, then he could be individually liable.

It's not quite that simple. The principle of "vicarious liability" means that companies may still be held responsible for employee behaviour in many cases even if those actions are not consistent with company policy. In fact, it's almost a slam-dunk if it can be shown that management knew about these practices but didn't do anything about them.

[AlphaOmega]

This is a trestle. Assuming that this is what the kids were playing on when the train was coming along, then the engineer should have slowed until the train had passed to some degree. The article says they could have 'lept to safety", yeah, but to where if this is a bridge and only two tracks? Not saying that this thing is over a 100' chasm but even 15' off the ground.

[Pick]

Yeah, where the fuck were these parents? Did they usually let them scamper around without supervision?!

I really don't see anything unusual about three kids aged 14, 13, and 11 being by themselves in a safe neighborhood.

One is listed as having cerebral palsey. Leaving a kid with a serious disability --age eleven-- in a neighborhood that trains run through is not responsible parenting. Also, safe depends on capability to deal with dangerous situations. This example isn't a safe neighborhood for the kids if they do not understand the danger of trains.

[Surlethe]

The article says they could have 'lept to safety", yeah, but to where if this is a bridge and only two tracks? Not saying that this thing is over a 100' chasm but even 15' off the ground.

When they saw the train coming on the west track, they jumped onto the other one; then, they jumped back. They could've leapt clear back onto the second track in time to evade the train, but instead dropped into fetal positions and were smushed.

While the Amtrak policy quite probably needs revision, this individual incident strikes me as poor judgment on the train operator's part: he should've kept it slow, or slowed even further, but instead, the impression I get is he thought, Thank God; they're out of the way, and sped back up.

[Star-Blighter]

It does also say that one of the girls has cerebral palsy. I've known people with CP before, and it's possible that she literally lurched back onto the previous track, and her friend jumped with her.

Yes, I did read that. It makes it all the more stupid to have tried walking on the track, the other two girls should have never taken her there and in my opinion were illresponsible even for their age. You have to understand that the 'Engineer' can't afford to stop on the tressal due to the tight schedules they have and that many times they have to get to a location on time or risk a collision with another engine, sometimes oncoming even with two track tressals. The only thing I think he could have done was keep a lower speed, and even that will only work if the people get off the damned track.

In the and you have to take the accident in context. The train belongs there, the kids who got killed didn't. Either way its a shitty thing to have to read about.

[Pick]

When they saw the train coming on the west track, they jumped onto the other one; then, they jumped back. They could've leapt clear back onto the second track in time to evade the train, but instead dropped into fetal positions and were smushed.[emphasis]

I'm really sorry for this aside, but I laughed at your excellently delicate terminology .

[Surlethe]

You have to understand that the 'Engineer' can't afford to stop on the tressal due to the tight schedules they have and that many times they have to get to a location on time or risk a collision with another engine, sometimes oncoming even with two track tressals.

Are you seriously trying to argue that staying on schedule is more important than human lives?

[AlphaOmega]

The article says they could have 'lept to safety", yeah, but to where if this is a bridge and only two tracks? Not saying that this thing is over a 100' chasm but even 15' off the ground.

When they saw the train coming on the west track, they jumped onto the other one; then, they jumped back. They could've leapt clear back onto the second track in time to evade the train, but instead dropped into fetal positions and were smushed.

You're right in a perfect world. But some of us are saying that the train engineer should have taken into account of child behavior;i.e., there is no way to know how they are going to react.

If the trestle had just two tracks (I am assuming here) and was built so many feet off the ground then I can understand the childrens panic behavior. I am not arguing that they should be excused for being on the tresle in the first place.
If so, would you argue that the children simply jumping to the other tracks would be enough of a sign to the train engineer to speed back up? I am having a hard time to justify that. Given the nature of the trestle, he should have continued to hit the break.
Bad assumptions all around for everyone in this case.

[Surlethe]

The article says they could have 'lept to safety", yeah, but to where if this is a bridge and only two tracks? Not saying that this thing is over a 100' chasm but even 15' off the ground.

When they saw the train coming on the west track, they jumped onto the other one; then, they jumped back. They could've leapt clear back onto the second track in time to evade the train, but instead dropped into fetal positions and were smushed.

You're right in a perfect world. But some of us are saying that the train engineer should have taken into account of child behavior;i.e., there is no way to know how they are going to react.

I'm correct in the real world, too: that's what happened. I'm not making any prescriptive statements about their behavior or the engineer's behavior with that statement.

If so, would you argue that the children simply jumping to the other tracks would be enough of a sign to the train engineer to speed back up? I am having a hard time to justify that. Given the nature of the trestle, he should have continued to hit the break.
Bad assumptions all around for everyone in this case.

Careful; I'm not arguing anything with that statement, but rather simply explaining what happened.

[Star-Blighter]

You have to understand that the 'Engineer' can't afford to stop on the tressal due to the tight schedules they have and that many times they have to get to a location on time or risk a collision with another engine, sometimes oncoming even with two track tressals.

Are you seriously trying to argue that staying on schedule is more important than human lives?

Fuck you dipshit.

Don't strawman me, asshole. Staying on schedule is just as important for safety reasons as it is for efficiency. If he had an oncomming train on his track, his overidding priority is to get to a switching station or siderail, so he doesn't hit another train, nitwit. Getting a train stopped and then started takes time, alot more time you seem to be aware of. It is not something you want to do on a tressal, at ALL.

Pretty low of you to think that I would consider keeping a schedule more important than human life just for the sake of being ontime (I did explain why its important, but you couldn't be bothered to read my whole post...), you knee-jerking pile of shit.

[Alyeska]

On the one hand, anyone who walks on train tracks is stupid. On the other hand, when you're talking about children (or actual retards), a reduced intellectual capacity is a given.

If the train "engineer" (a term I refuse to use without quote marks because it'a an abuse of the original meaning) could have braked much harder but didn't, then I'd say yes, he was negligent. Just sounding a whistle isn't enough; you have no way of knowing whether the child in front of you is handicapped or deaf or (to put it bluntly) a retard.

The engineer is required to put the train into full emergency braking. With such indicents the engineer is going to have to stop anyway and is going to have nightmares for the rest of his life. He definately did everything in his power to stop.

[Star-Blighter]

The engineer is required to put the train into full emergency braking. With such indicents the engineer is going to have to stop anyway and is going to have nightmares for the rest of his life. He definately did everything in his power to stop.

Thank you. Those poor bastards are really inbetween a rock and a hardplace and can't do much even with forewarning on the radio (if they're that lucky). Operating a locamotive can be a very unenviable position.

[Uraniun235]

Even comparatively "light rail" trains take a long distance to stop. My dad eventually stopped driving the local light-rail trains and went back to driving busses because he simply couldn't take the stress of knowing he might well see someone die and not be able to do anything about it. (He'd already been through three accidents, one of which he said "the poor bastard would have been lucky to not survive.")

[Alyeska]

The engineer is required to put the train into full emergency braking. With such indicents the engineer is going to have to stop anyway and is going to have nightmares for the rest of his life. He definately did everything in his power to stop.

Thank you. Those poor bastards are really inbetween a rock and a hardplace and can't do much even with forewarning on the radio (if they're that lucky). Operating a locamotive can be a very unenviable position.

Almost every conductor and engineer with more then 10 years experience has killed someone. I know this because I asked almost every conductor and engineer I worked with, and only ONE engineer in our entire station had yet to kill someone.

The engineer is going to plug that train, and if he doesn't the conductor (in Amtraks case, no) is going to. The mess afterwards is an absolute nightmare.

[Alyeska]

Trains take a bare minimum of a quarter mile to stop, and that is for a train with a nearly empty load. A fully loaded train is going to require upwards of a mile and a half to stop. I was working on train that was cruising along at a speedy 45 mph and the train suddenly went into emergency braking. The engineer has no choice but to stop the train as quickly as possible. It took us more then a mile. We were moving at 45 mph here.

Amtrak trains move at speeds in excess of 70 mph. Sure they are only passenger trains, but they also only have a single engine which seriously cuts into the braking power. Those engines are diesel engines which use dynamic breaking to help aid brake power. With a single engine on an Amtrak train moving 60+ mph, its going to take a mile to stop easily.

[Darth Wong]

The engineer is required to put the train into full emergency braking. With such indicents the engineer is going to have to stop anyway and is going to have nightmares for the rest of his life. He definately did everything in his power to stop.

You assume that he did everything in his power to stop. Until I have some reason to think otherwise, I'll assume that the Appeals Court which felt otherwise had some reason for this conclusion, since they did more research into the incident than you did.

[Alyeska]

It is required by the rules that the engineer stop that train as quickly as possible. Federal law normaly requires the train be stopped as safely as possile (some loads don't like sudden changes in speed), but in a situation like this it requires that the trained be stopped as quickly as is possible. Given that hitting the brakes full power would give the kids a chance to get out of the way and also avoid giving the engineer nightmares for the rest of his life, I am without doubt that he did this.

The only way he might not have gone into emergency is if he was sleeping. That is a possibility. That or the guy was pyschotic.

In a situation like this I am always going to side with the engine crew. They do everything in their power to stop in time.

Hell, one train I was on I was acting as conductor and I saw three semis racing to get across the tracks before we got to them. My hand was on the emergency brake lever the whole time and if I saw any indication one was going to stall somewhat, I was going to plug that train.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way you insist that your personal assumptions about what happened are comparable in value to the fact that an Appeals Court investigated the incident, presumably heard testimony from expert witnesses, and concluded otherwise.

[Lord Poe]

We go through safelty awareness concerning RR tracks every year from "Operation Lifesaver" http://www.oli.org/ at the transportation company where I work. Here's some stats from the pamphlet:

After fully applying the brakes, (sic) a loaded freight train traveling 55 mph takes a mile or more to stop. A light rail train can take 600 feet to stop, and an 8-car passenger train traveling 80 mph requires about a mile to stop.

We are required to stop at all RR tracks, and open the passenger doors (and take the abuse of the cars blaring their horns behind us) before crossing (except at signal-controlled, or "exempt" RR tracks).

When driving the dial-a-ride van OR my personal vehicle, when I see an ice cream truck, I slow down to an absolute CRAWL, and stop at the front bumper of the truck to make sure kids are going to bolt out in front of me.

You CAN'T trust kids, even if they're in complete control of their faculties.

[J]

From the article:

Reithmeir was a half-mile away from the trestle when he slowed the train from 79 to 65 mph after being alerted to the children up ahead, court documents say. As he approached, he saw the girls jump to the east tracks and out of harm, so he released the brake and the train accelerated onto the trestle.

The train accelerated onto the trestle, that doesn't seem consistent with doing everything possible to slow or stop the train as quickly as possible.

[Surlethe]

Fuck you dipshit.

Don't strawman me, asshole. Staying on schedule is just as important for safety reasons as it is for efficiency. If he had an oncomming train on his track, his overidding priority is to get to a switching station or siderail, so he doesn't hit another train, nitwit. Getting a train stopped and then started takes time, alot more time you seem to be aware of. It is not something you want to do on a tressal, at ALL.

And you will, of course, provide evidence that the possibility of him hitting another train if he doesn't immediately stop is larger than the possibility of him hitting the kids, especially in light of communications equipment, as well as evidence the risk is actually greater than the nearly imminent destruction of two human lives. I know for a fact trains can stop without ruining schedules; I've seen trains parked over highways, I've seen trains arrive hours behind schedule; clearly, not all train schedules are as inflexible as you make them out to be.

Pretty low of you to think that I would consider keeping a schedule more important than human life just for the sake of being ontime (I did explain why its important, but you couldn't be bothered to read my whole post...), you knee-jerking pile of shit.

I read your whole goddamned post, asshole. It is a pile of "many times", "sometimes", "risk"s, with no concrete evidence to demonstrate an actual train wreck becomes imminent if he stops to permit the kids to get off the track, all to wave away the train operator's duty of care.

[Star-Blighter]

I love the way you insist that your personal assumptions about what happened are comparable in value to the fact that an Appeals Court investigated the incident, presumably heard testimony from expert witnesses, and concluded otherwise.

And who exactly are these witnesses? The passengers? Fuck they wouldn't have a clue if it hit them in ass. The one survivor? A teenage girl stupid enough to be there in the first place? You think she wouldn't lie about it? I go with experience, personal or otherwise, I don't presume to know everything about the safety procedures that diesal drivers have to undertake but I do know how difficult it is to stop a train under load. There isn't much the driver could have done, there NEVER is when dealing with trains.

Fuck the appeals court until they conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the 'engineer' did not do everything in his power (which conclusively isn't a whole hell of alot) to avoid hitting those children. And where the fuck were the parents? I'd like to know what caused these kids to be in a place they shouldn't have been in the first place. Gross negligence should be on the parents.

I side with the locamotive crew, they know their jobs and don't need some armchair general to them what they should or shouldn't have done. Regardless of the circumstances, one DOES NOT FUCKING WALK DOWN RAILROAD TRACKS. You'd have to be terminally stupid or suicidal, so don't brush over that.

[aerius]

Don't strawman me, asshole. Staying on schedule is just as important for safety reasons as it is for efficiency. If he had an oncomming train on his track, his overidding priority is to get to a switching station or siderail, so he doesn't hit another train, nitwit. Getting a train stopped and then started takes time, alot more time you seem to be aware of. It is not something you want to do on a tressal, at ALL.

There were 2 tracks, one in each direction. Tell me dumbass, how the fuck is he going to hit an oncoming train unless both the control & the switching stations completely fuck up?